Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
There's a blatantly untrue statement. Undue optimism can hurt, once the false hope is shredded.Axis Kast wrote:Optimism hurts no one.
Once again, you present your opinion as fact. He may reduce his credibility in your eyes, but not in mine.Axis Kast wrote:Okay. I’ll bite.
Carter has the constitutional right to criticize the president. And the sky won’t absolutely fall if ex-presidents choose to exercise that prerogative now or in the future.
However, there is such a thing as good judgment. Carter and others ought to hold their tongues for the reasons I have pointed out: they don’t seem to add revelations that otherwise wouldn’t be had; they reduce the credibility of the chief executive; and they present a political concern that the President doesn’t need to worry about.
On the contrary, optimism is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS if it is used improperly. In times of great peril for a nation, does it serve the people well to have them complacent with their way of life?
It’s not that a President shouldn’t tell the truth to the American public. It’s that it’s unnecessary for him to make them feel bad. Optimism hurts no one.
And traded weapons for hostages. Are you done with your red herring yet?Reagan blasted Iran’s oil rigs and sank several of their naval assets in retaliation for attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf.
Seconded. The "we're the best, rah rah" speeches we've gotten, and continue especially to get from Bush grate. I don't want constant doom and gloom (unless said doom is approaching), but I'd like to be treated like an intelligent person instead of a drool dripping moron. Yes, I know presidents like to play to the latter.Uraniun235 wrote:If anything, Carter should be commended for having the balls to suggest that things aren't looking so great, that there might be tough times ahead, and that just maybe the American people need to reexamine their lives.
If I'm not mistaken, his record after his Presidency has been pretty fantastic with humanitarian projects and such. The man may even have learned a lot after his presidency. Regardless, NO American should be barred from speaking their mind about the current administration. At this point, the majority of Americans do not find what he's saying to be a news flash.Carter made some blunders, but I personally think he's one of the most basically decent human beings to ever be President.
The assertions may not be new, but given the apathy and cynicism displayed towards most political pundits by the American public (not always without good reason) it seems reasonable to me that at times a more forceful expression of those assertions may be necessary in order to force it into the public consciousness, as well as to lend further credibility to those assertions.Carter and others ought to hold their tongues for the reasons I have pointed out: they don’t seem to add revelations that otherwise wouldn’t be had; they reduce the credibility of the chief executive; and they present a political concern that the President doesn’t need to worry about.
if the truth harms the "credibility of the chief executive", then the "credibility of the chief executive" must be a lie.Axis Kast wrote:Carter and others ought to hold their tongues for the reasons I have pointed out: they don’t seem to add revelations that otherwise wouldn’t be had; they reduce the credibility of the chief executive; and they present a political concern that the President doesn’t need to worry about.
Sounds like the same mealy-mouthed self-esteem bullshit that's fucked up our education system and graduated a generation of slack-jawed imbeciles who can't do math.It’s not that a President shouldn’t tell the truth to the American public. It’s that it’s unnecessary for him to make them feel bad.
Optimism is a piss-poor replacement for intellectual integrity.Optimism hurts no one.
Like, say, optimism that our troops would be greeted with flowers in Iraq?Comical Axi wrote:Optimism hurts no one.
yeah, my roomies' neo-con aunt with a fundy mill degree got her master's in political science for blaming all the problems in the middle east on Jimmy Carter.....Darth Wong wrote:It's about time Jimmy Carter finally shot back. The Republitards have been dragging his name through the mud for 20 years. This makes up for about 0.00001% of the tarring that they've sent his way.
How do you reduce the credibility of someone who had no credibility even before he got into office?Axis Kast wrote:However, there is such a thing as good judgment. Carter and others ought to hold their tongues for the reasons I have pointed out: they don’t seem to add revelations that otherwise wouldn’t be had; they reduce the credibility of the chief executive; and they present a political concern that the President doesn’t need to worry about.
And here's me thinking that leaders in free nations are supposed to be accountable to the people. Bush is a fuckup, and it's Carter's and anyone else's right to say he's a fuckup.It’s not that a President shouldn’t tell the truth to the American public. It’s that it’s unnecessary for him to make them feel bad. Optimism hurts no one.
Sacred? It's the President. Not God Emperor. Respect for the office and what it represents does not equate to regarding the man in the office as infallible. You do that and you open yourselves up for disaster.The President of the United States is a sacred office that can in no way be compared to any other. First because of its cultural status, second because of the responsibility of the man who occupies the office, and third because of the information that passes under his gaze.
I'd argue that the points Axis Kast raises with regards to the office of the president increases peopole's responsibility to criticize the holder of that office when he screws up. The office is, after all, not indistinguishable from the man who is entrusted with honouring it by the electorate.Cao Cao wrote:Sacred? It's the President. Not God Emperor. Respect for the office and what it represents does not equate to regarding the man in the office as infallible. You do that and you open yourselves up for disaster.Axis Kast wrote:The President of the United States is a sacred office that can in no way be compared to any other. First because of its cultural status, second because of the responsibility of the man who occupies the office, and third because of the information that passes under his gaze.
-- Asuka
Wrong. Silence = approval and consent.Axis Kast wrote:Okay. I’ll bite.
Carter has the constitutional right to criticize the president. And the sky won’t absolutely fall if ex-presidents choose to exercise that prerogative now or in the future.
However, there is such a thing as good judgment. Carter and others ought to hold their tongues for the reasons I have pointed out: they don’t seem to add revelations that otherwise wouldn’t be had; they reduce the credibility of the chief executive; and they present a political concern that the President doesn’t need to worry about.
Naval assets? The Navy destroyed a few small boats and rafts. They were "naval assets" like some schmuck rent-a-cop is a "government agent". The gunboat diplomacy in the Gulf led to the Vincennes blowing away a passenger jet and killing hundreds of people. Which in turn led to the bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie.Reagan blasted Iran’s oil rigs and sank several of their naval assets in retaliation for attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf.
ALL HAIL OWN DIVINE GOD-EMPEROR! HE IS HEAVEN'S GIFT TO THE WORLD! ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS A COMMUNIST!The President of the United States is a sacred office that can in no way be compared to any other. First because of its cultural status, second because of the responsibility of the man who occupies the office, and third because of the information that passes under his gaze.
Please.Presidents should be, at the very least, judicious about the comments they make. Their word always counts for more because they are capable of marshalling facts most people don’t and will never know anything about. That’s always in the background when they speak. Even if we should expect them to justify themselves in everything, it is a power that they should be aware of.
They give money to war whore think tanks so they can incite a new war.No corporate military supplier is going to be in a position to say, “We’ve drawn up these here plans about a secret intervention in a foreign country.”
How about the one where Carter is supposed to be best friends with thug regimes in Nicaragua and South Africa well, because. Or the one where Carter should have started a war with Iran over the hostages. Yeah, that would have worked.I’ve noticed you’re very good at blowing a lot of hot air through the hole in your face. Would you care to explain how anything I’ve said is somehow outside the realm of reality?
That's the language you would use to describe a king, Axi. Not an elective chief executive who counts second in the constitutional distribution of powers in a democratic republic. Congratulations: you've just stood the American Revolution, The Federalist Papers, sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and the whole of American governmental theory on their heads.Comical Axi wrote:The President of the United States is a sacred office that can in no way be compared to any other. First because of its cultural status, second because of the responsibility of the man who occupies the office, and third because of the information that passes under his gaze.
More evasions. And quite the contrary, "good judgment" DEMANDS that EVERYONE, INCLUDING Carter criticize Bush's bullshit.Axis Kast wrote:However, there is such a thing as good judgment. Carter and others ought to hold their tongues for the reasons I have pointed out: they don’t seem to add revelations that otherwise wouldn’t be had; they reduce the credibility of the chief executive; and they present a political concern that the President doesn’t need to worry about.
FALSE optimism hurts plenty of people. Its called "living in denial" at best and "lies" at worst.It’s not that a President shouldn’t tell the truth to the American public. It’s that it’s unnecessary for him to make them feel bad. Optimism hurts no one.
How does ANY of this support your idiotic idea that former Presidents shouldn't criticize the current one? In fact, reasons two and three only mean the President should hold MORE responsibility to be answerable to the public and not immune from criticism from others who have held the office in the past.The President of the United States is a sacred office that can in no way be compared to any other. First because of its cultural status, second because of the responsibility of the man who occupies the office, and third because of the information that passes under his gaze.
So what? Would this be ANY DIFFERENT if the pressure had come from a corporate military supplier?
Irrelevant. This was about criticizing the President and certain people having extra 'influence' behind those criticisms.No corporate military supplier is going to be in a position to say, “We’ve drawn up these here plans about a secret intervention in a foreign country.”
Still irrelevant to the current point since neither Dulles nor Bissell were former Presidents. Is Kast going to be expanding his statement from "former Presidents shouldn't criticize the current President" to "any former Government official shouldn't"?Kennedy shouldn’t have caved to the pressure to enact a bad plan. Eisenhower should never have allowed Dulles and Bissell to do what they did.
No, its your ridiculous leap in logic to conclude that this "influence" means they shouldn't criticize the current President that we object to.Former presidents have tremendous influence. They have held the highest office in the land. They have tremendous power even after they are no longer occupying the White House. Do you disagree?
Isn't it amazing how Kast tries to blame the one pointing out the fuckup for harming the President's credibility instead of the President who caused the fuckup in the first place?Darth Wong wrote:if the truth harms the "credibility of the chief executive", then the "credibility of the chief executive" must be a lie.Axis Kast wrote:Carter and others ought to hold their tongues for the reasons I have pointed out: they don’t seem to add revelations that otherwise wouldn’t be had; they reduce the credibility of the chief executive; and they present a political concern that the President doesn’t need to worry about.
It's simple: Carter's the one who let a bunch of towelheads snatch 52 of our people and didn't immediately nuke the whole region, while St. Reagan of Iran/Contra got them back as an inauguration present.Big Orange wrote:Angry Man in Crowd: ""Jimmy Carter?! He's history's greatest monster!"
On a more serious note I find it mildly funny that the American Right is snarling at Jimmy Carter for accepting oil money from Saudi Arabia when the Bush family and their associates based most of their recent wealth around Middle Eastern business. And it's puzzling why Jimmy Carter is widely blamed for the modern Middle Eastern problems when they were ongoing since the British pulled out. Was he made a scapegoat for circumstantial problems when he was Commander in Chief?
This is one of those things that pisses me off to no end. Carter refuses to negotiate with terrorists and even attempts a raid to rescue them and he's lambasted for it.Patrick Degan wrote:It's simple: Carter's the one who let a bunch of towelheads snatch 52 of our people and didn't immediately nuke the whole region, while St. Reagan of Iran/Contra got them back as an inauguration present.
Von Reagan was Tehran's bitch. So much so that they left some money on the nightstand, which he used to sponsor death squads in Nicaragua.The Spartan wrote:This is one of those things that pisses me off to no end. Carter refuses to negotiate with terrorists and even attempts a raid to rescue them and he's lambasted for it.Patrick Degan wrote:It's simple: Carter's the one who let a bunch of towelheads snatch 52 of our people and didn't immediately nuke the whole region, while St. Reagan of Iran/Contra got them back as an inauguration present.
Reagan negotiates with the bastards and sells them weapons and he's thought well of.
Fucking ridiculous.
You openly stated a President's office is sacred and that his credibility shouldn't be challenged. You have thus described authority and unquestioned loyalty not availiable to most Monarchs.Axis Kast wrote:First of all, my statement has nothing to do with George W. Bush. I believe that it is irresponsible for past presidents to openly criticize sitting presidents, period. My reservations about such behavior do not simply apply to Jimmy Carter, but also extend to all people who have sat or will sit in the Oval Office.
That is insane. You're basically stating that after a president serves, he gives up a right that all Americans have, the right to speak their mind about the government.Axis Kast wrote:First of all, my statement has nothing to do with George W. Bush. I believe that it is irresponsible for past presidents to openly criticize sitting presidents, period. My reservations about such behavior do not simply apply to Jimmy Carter, but also extend to all people who have sat or will sit in the Oval Office.
It is precisely because these people are qualified in that position that their opinions should be voiced. They know fucked up when they see it. And this is not an instance where this guy has been in office six months or even 2 years. He's not the "new man on the job".Now. Back to brass tacks. The entire problem of “backseat governing” boils down to the fact that presidents have seen and done things that the American public will never know about. There is an expectation that their decisions and opinions involve special considerations. And that is why it is particularly dangerous for former presidents to get into the business of criticizing the new man on the job.
What? What are these unintended consequences? Only the dumbest of dumb 30% of this country still believes Bush is a great guy. Carter isn't saying anything groundbreaking. And despite large amounts of discontent with his administration, and potentially impeachable offenses, no one is taking to the streets in overwealming force. The country's morale is down not because Carter stated the blithfully obvious, but because he's right about the source of the problem.If not, we have plenty of other people with less potential to create unintended consequences that can speak out in public.